Did you point out TABOR does require a vote for all new taxes, to include ones that don’t affect everyone?

I tend to view telling someone what they can and can’t do as being possessive. Demanding monogamy is therefore possessive. It’s taking away agency not as bad or as possessive as saying you can’t have friends who are X. Which is probably the most commonly recognized form of such behavior, but it’s on the same continuum in my mind.

I don’t disagree necessarily, I would describe the woman who’s part of a different poly that we hook up with occasionally as a friend with benefits situation, though I’d be open to changing that dynamic if she was. But very much the stable and lasting poly relationships I’ve been in were effectively group dating. Like not to say there was never separate dates here and there, but very much most things are communal. I’m with you on barely having enough spoons to maintain the minimum required hygiene and meet general social expectations, I couldn’t handle a situation where I’m going on multiple dates with different people every week. Been there. Tried that. It wasn’t sustainable. But a core group where individual members just happen to have FWBs is perfectly manageable in my experience, though keeping track of paramours can be a pain since I’m really bad with names.

Having that close core group also comes with benefits such as someone almost always being available and even if not all interests are mutual you’ll share some with one, some with another, and a lot more time can be spent together with someone your close with working on projects or getting way to deep into philosophy or lore.

And to be clear I’m of the mind that people can be monogamous if they want, I just don’t get it. It feels to possessive and limiting. I don’t want to and literally can’t be someone’s everything and don’t expect any one other person to be my everything either. Probably helps no kids are involved nor can they become so biologically with who I’m currently with. Kids seem to complicate the fuck out of relationships from what I’ve seen. So at least in our case that can’t become a thing without mutual agreement. Not to say kids require monogamy, that’s not true, I’ve seen it work without that being the case, but only twice.

You really don’t need a lot of rules, I know a lot of people swear by stuff like relationship contracts and the like. But realistically that’s never been something I’ve pursued and that does seem incredibly overwhelming. Current relationship the rules are as follows: don’t bring STDs home, don’t bring people over during normal sleeping hours without approval, preferably a couple days of notice; and don’t become emotionally unavailable otherwise it’s not really a relationship. That’s it.

No conspiracy, let me shed some light. First, open and poly relationships don’t work if anyone involved is especially possessive. I don’t mean like a little jealous, or slightly insecure (that can be worked through) I mean one person expects a fair bit of say over one or multiple others lives.

Assuming you now only have a pool of a few reasonably well adjusted emotionally people (well adjusted socially is nice but not requisite) you can now just have N people agree they like each other and want to be together, but like occasionally hook up outside the group either under some arbitrary rule such as being in different zip codes from everyone else or just in general so long as proper precautions are taken. You have a core group of N people who are emotionally and financially intertwined and N+X people who happen to have all hooked up.

It’s a fine system, have almost never been monogamous, and it’s just like the times I was monogamous except no one is going to be upset about random hookups unless there was a generally accepted rule broken. I also personally find a core group of N=3 to be the roughly ideal number, but everyone’s mileage will vary.

Though I suspect that societal normalization will be informed by the economic situation. The reality is if you can’t afford to live without 3 incomes everyone will eventually organize around 3 person core households and society will defend the new tradition or whatever.

Of course somewhere in there a lot of people have to give up on religious and social hangups but that’s already in progress if the number of articles like this coming out is steadily increasing (it is)

Thank you, I hate it when libraries fail and don’t give me good info, like failed to load doesn’t help, failed to load because of syntax error on line 45 of input is soooo nice when that happens.

I love those things, but I also really like malt powder in general. What i don’t understand is how Hershey Kiss still exists those taste like vomit.

Without a personally owned domicile (to include private living quarters with communal food prep or similar) is it even possible to retire? The rent hikes makes retirement impossible otherwise.

Back in the day I wanted to be a 1337 hAx0R so I installed Linux to get my wifi adapter into monitor mode so I could pwn wifi. Eventually I just didn’t leave Linux, probably in part because a few friends of mine ran it and refused to run Windows, we used to have LAN parties fairly regularly so yeah just convenient.

No, the 3rd amendment means your house/apt can’t be turned into a barracks.

Refusing service is just how things are, no specific amendment

It’s hardly a majority. Very few have a mag safety, and those that do often have it removed by their owners because it makes the weapon annoying to function check safely.

In essence yes, for example VMware ESXi hosts can be managed by a single image with customizations made at the cluster level. Give me pxe and I can provision you n hosts in about the same time as 1 host